MCDA can be realized in many ways

1. Engaging stakeholders in environmental planning projects by using MCDA approach in Finland A. Decisionmakers and expertsuse MCDA on theirown, no stakeholdersinvolved MCDA can be realized in many ways B. Stakeholdersopinionsareincluded in MCDA e.g. byusingquestionnaire C. Stakeholdersareactivelyinvolved in allphases of MCDA High Mika Marttunen SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute Timo Karjalainen University of Oulu Raimo P. Hämäläinen Aalto University, Systems Analysis Laboratory GDN 2012 | An International Meeting on Group Decision and Negotiation Recife, Brazil, 20 - 24 May, 2012 C Stakeholders’ learning, communication, and approval B A Low Low High Stakeholders’ involvement

2. State-of-the-art in MCDA • MCDA applications in environmental planning are diverse and rapidly increasing. • Water resources, fisheries and forestry management, energy and climate policies, traffic, spatial/GIS etc… • MCDA is used to activate and involve stakeholder. • How to design and implement MCDA processes which are understandable, meaningful and effective from participants’ points of views?

3. Charateristics of goodparticipationprocesses(e.g. Beierle 2002, French et al. 2005) • Involves stakeholders early • Fair and open • Incorporates public values and knowledge into decision making • Enhances learning • Builds trust between participants • Cost-effective

4. Stages of Stakeholder Involvement – the MCDA ladder Role of stakeholders? How to gather preference information ? Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE Personalinterviews and groupdiscussions (DAI approach) Personal and interactivecomputeraidedinterviews Decisionconferencesorworkshopsareused to collectpreferenceinformationfromstakeholders . Increase in stakeholders’s role and interaction Postal questionnairesareused to collectpreferenceinformation. Experts are using MCDA on their own, stakeholders are not involved.

5. The Decision Analysis Interview (DAI) approach • Interactive computer supported MCDA process based on personal interviews (Marttunen and Hämäläinen 1995). • Helps participants to develop a well-informed opinion about the alternatives. • Easy to describe differences in stakeholders’ opinions. • Useful to identify groups having similarperspectives • Our experience: 10 real environmental projects. • Altogether 250 people personally interviewed, 10-30 people in a project. • Softaware used: • Web-HIPRE, Excel spreadsheets and a customized MCDA tool.

6. Decision analysis interview approach FRAMING, ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION STAKEHOLDERS’ OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVESIdentifying and structuringobjectives and developingalternatives ALTERNATIVES’ IMPACTS Definingattributes, scales and performancescores STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS Studyingworkbookmaterial and answering the questionnaire Valuetree Impactmatrix Preliminaryestimates for the importances of the impacts INTERACTIVE USE OF MCDA SOFTWARE Discussion of the responses to the questionnaire Modifications to the valuetree and to the performancescores Attributes’ weights, arguments and consistency-checking Analysis of the results SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Differentperspectives and valueprofilesIssues of agreement and disagreement

7. Primary aims in some of SYKE’s MCDA projects

8. The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects Very high Key stakeholders are actively involved in the different phases of the analysis, and the weight elicitation and analysis of the results are done interactively with computer supported tool. Experts dominate. Stakeholdersarenotactivelyinvolved into the process. Integration level of MCDA into the decision process Low Low Very high Interaction level of MCDA process

9. The levels of integration and interaction in MCDA projects MCDA is tightly linked into the planning process. MCDA provides a roadmap and evaluation framework for the project. Very high Integration level of MCDA into the decision process MCDA is a separate exercise which do not have impact on decision making. Low Low Very high Interaction level of MCDA process

10. Integration of MCDA and interaction levels in the projects Mustionjoki (2010) Very high Pirkanmaa (2002) Koitere (2005) Päijänne (1998) Kokemäenjoki (1993) Mäntsälä (2007) Integration level of MCDA into the decision process Pielinen (2011) Iijoki (2010) Oulujärvi (1992) Plavinas (2006) Rovaniemi (2012) Ylä-Lappi (2008) Keski-Suomi (2011) Low Low Very high Interaction level of the MCDA process

11. Mustionjoki River restoration project • Enhancement of endangered pearl mussel and salmon stock • A heavily modified and regulated river

12. Multiple stakeholder events related to MCDA

13. The benefits of DAI approach in group decision making = improved collaborative planning

14. Shifts participant’s mental model into co-operative mode Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE • Building a commonly accepted evaluation framework has positive systemic impacts. • Participants’ objectives form the basis for the whole evaluation • Supports shifting discussion towards ”opening up” mode. • What are the alternatives? What kind of impacts have they ? What kind of uncertanties relate to them? • DAI aims at individual and social learning. • Understanding the real magnitude of impacts • How do people consider the alternatives and their impacts ? • What are the issues of agreement and disagreement?

15. Improves understanding Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE • Supports the synthesis of information. • Helps people carefully consider the alternatives’ impacts as well as their own preferences. • Interactiveness enables immediate feedback (”learning by analysing”). • Easy to see differences in people’s perspectives. .

16. Improves fairness and transparency Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE • Stakeholders are actively involved in the problem framing and structuring phases. • Stakeholder knowledge invited and efficiently utilized. • Evaluation of alternatives is systematic and open. • Participants can revise expert evaluations of impacts. • Every participant has a ” voice” which is documented.

17. Enhances trust Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE • During the process people learn to better understand other people’s objectives. • Trust towards the project and authorities responsible for it improves. • Several meetings => people get familiar to each other => feeling of togetherness may develop. • Risk that MCDA will be considered as a black box method decreases.

18. Sustains interest of participants on the process Taneli Duunari-Työntekijäinen, SYKE • Brings structure, systemacy and rigourness to process. • New approach for most participants => people are eager to participate. • People have possibility to analyse their opinions and get their opinions documented. • Strong support and positive feedback from the participants.

19. MCDA in group decision making MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION SITUATION DAI APPROACH PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING Opportunities for joint-gainsimproves Willingness to compromiseincreases Commitment to the outcome

20. Findings from the DAI approach • DAI focuses on learning and understandingbetterdifferentperspectives. • No need to findagreement on the weights of the criteria • The choice of the stakeholders is crucial. • Participants’ opinionsshouldcover a widerangeopinions • The process is relativelylaborious. • Common problemstructuring and impactassessment • Flexibilityneededfrom the MCDA team. • Process is iterative and evolutionary • Weightelicitationprocess is cognitivelydemanding. • Interactiveapproachhelps and diminishesmistakes

21. Conclusions • High quality decisions are based on good understanding what is important (values) and what are the impacts of the alternatives (facts). • The quality of the outcome and the acceptability of the planning process depends on how fair and open people consider it. • MCDA has a great potential in improving the quality of group decision making processes. • Integrated and interactive approach!

22. THANK YOU!